To The Daily Sun,
L.J. Siden is at it again, demanding I prove my opinions are my opinions. Okay LJ, I'll call on all the readers who regularly read my letters to attest that what I think is what I believe. There you go L.J., enough?
I was watching TV news the other day and James Carvel and another well known liberal lady, whose name escapes me at the moment, were mutually agreeing that Hillary Clinton has not broken any laws or rules over her e-mail operation. Turning the channel to Fox I see a couple retired judges hosted by a lawyer who arrive at an opposite conclusion. They site Form SO109, which they say all State Department employees leaving the service of the government must sign, swearing under oath that they have given over to the department all communications (which includes personal ones) to be reviewed by the department. That person can request personal e-mails to be returned. The discussion went on for a time and the conclusion was that Mrs. Clinton violated federal law by having personal servers in her home, owned by she and Bill, which contained government communications and which were not turned over at her time of departure from State. Guess Carvel and company didn't settle the issue after all.
So many Democrats are expressing their doubts about the legality and ethics of Mrs. Clinton actions, I'm guessing this story is not over. Many Clinton excuse-rs are on the march to brand this "a vast right-wing conspiracy". Once again they omit that it was The New York Times that broke the story in the first place. Along with this story the Washington Post broke the story that millions and millions of dollars have been donated to the Clinton Foundation by Middle East nations (see WP for list). Every one of these Muslim nations abuse, denigrate, and violate women's rights, and human rights as part of their culture. The Post asks how can Hillary accept money from these people and still stand up and say she is a leader for women's rights? This while acting as our Secretary of State. What was the quid pro quo?
Poor Hillary, it's just one big question after another, year after year, decade after decade. Her supporters never seem to be bothered by it, but will independents finally have enough of her "poor me" act? Her speech the other day "explaining" the personal servers in her home and wide-eyed innocence belies the fact that she's been in Washington, forever it seems, and knows all the rules. Just thinks those rules, and laws, don't apply to her though, too inconvenient?